Past Blog Posts

Another win for the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC: Person just granted adjustment of status. It turns out that our client has two criminal charges in his record [I don’t know if the office was aware of this]- the client denied any criminal past on multiple occassions and upon the officer’s insistence he first admitted to being arrested for a Domestic Violence dispute in Torrance and, upon further insistence by the officer, who specifically asked if anything transpired in FL, he then admitted that he also had an issue (not sure if assault) in FL. The officer gave us the case number for the FL incident 102-883 12/13/98 and requested certified copy of the disposition of both incidents (client later told me he believes he was given 1 year probation for the DV but is not sure and that he never mentioned the FL incident because the judge told him it was dismissed).

Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1226(c) (2006),requires mandatory detention of a criminal alien only if he or she is released from non-DHS custody after the expiration of the Transition Period Custody Rules (â€œTPCRâ€) and only where there has been a post-TPCR release that is directly tied to the basis for detention under sections 236(c)(1)(A)â€“(D) of the Act. Matter of Saysana, 24 I&N Dec. 602 (BIA 2008), overruled; Matter of Adeniji

Share this:

Like this:

ninth overrules in favor of asylee. Court of appeals had jurisdiction to review determination that petitioner did not timely file his asylum application where the underlying fact that petitioner arrived in the United States less than one year before filing his asylum application was undisputed. Petitionerâ€™s testimony that that he hid in China until less than one year before he applied for asylum was clear and convincing evidence that he did so, and immigration judge erred in concluding that proof of an exact arrival date was necessary. Immigration judge did not err in denying request for withholding of removal on the basis that petitioner had not established a likelihood that he would be subject to persecution where Chinese authorities searched for petitioner only on account of his assistance to a Falun Gong practitioner, not his political opinion or religion. Petitioner did not qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture where the actions of Chinese authorities suggested, at most, that he might be subject to interrogation or punishment for his assistance to the escapee. Lin v. Holder